Calaveras County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The current General Plan, adopted in 1996, does not meet the statutory requirements of the state Government Code. California requires each county and city to adopt a general plan for its future development (Government Code §65300). In 2006, the BOS decided to initiate a General Plan update. The plan update is anticipated to take two to three years; during that time a quasi- moratorium is in place to curtail certain types of development.
F2:
At this time within the County there are two general viewpoints regarding the proposed General Plan: 1.) A community vision to guide decisions about development and land use. 2.) A State mandated, legally defensible document of land use restrictions. Both viewpoints are incorporated within the proposal submitted by contracted planning consultants, Mintier and Associates (Mintier).
F3:
Costs to the county for the update have been estimated to be $1,350,000, which includes the estimated consultant fee of $1,000,000. This estimate is most likely unrealistic since real costs for the update do not tabulate all of the direct and indirect costs to all of the county agencies involved in the process. Cost estimates also do not include overruns generated by possible litigation. 63
F4:
After reviewing the work plan proposed by CDA and Mintier, the Grand Jury concludes that ample consideration for land use planning has been given to the Calaveras County general public. Input regarding the general vision for planning as well as specific input by special interest groups and individuals is part of the Public Input sections of the draft.
F5:
Special interest requests have already come to the BOS during the kickoff meeting with the public. Two basic approaches to the update process are planning either from the general to specific or from specific to the general. Working from the general to specific (community and special interest planning) is the approach represented by Option 2 work plan supported by the CDA. SUMMARY Community development as represented by the General Plan is a lengthy and contentious process. It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that the public would be better served with a General Plan starting from a general overall vision and moving to specific community planning. Delays created by planning starting with specific and local needs can cause significant delays and therefore increased costs to the citizens. Obtaining public input on a vision for the county general plan is planned during the public comment process. That overall vision statement is currently lacking in the current General Plan draft. Vision is a generalized statement regarding land use and future of the county. Specifics of the plan can grow out of a general vision.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department normally responds to all voice mails and there is some question as to whether the Department was actually notified of this particular incident.
R2:
It is the responsibility of the sanitary district to follow proper reporting procedures. When a sewage release occurs in excess of 1000 gallons to land or any amount is discharged into waters of the state, sanitary districts are required by law to notify the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). The Sanitary District failed to follow proper reporting procedures as prescribed in law.
R3:
Sewage spills are not subject to Proposition 65 notification as cited in the Grand Jury Report.
R4:
Referring callers to 911 for sewage spills is not necessary if a Sanitary District follows reporting procedures as prescribed in law. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The response by the Murphys Sanitary District does not adequately meet the recommendation of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury. Although the Grand Jury agrees that “Referring callers to 911 for sewage spills is not necessary if a Sanitary District follows reporting procedures as prescribed in law”, the recommendation was made to address any caller (not just a sanitary district) who wishes to report an environmental emergency. SUMMARY MSD currently uses three documents to guide its operations: 1) An employee handbook, dated October 2006; 2) A document titled ‘Ordinance #2’, dated September 2006, which details rules and procedures for dealing with ratepayer hookups; 3) A Capital Improvement Program (CIP), dated February 2006, describing both short and long range infrastructure plans. None of these documents comprise a comprehensive policies and procedure manual for dealing with the day-to-day operation of the district, the wastewater treatment plant, and contingences for emergency reporting. As a result, neither the public, nor the media and some required agencies received notification of this large spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek. RECOMMENDATION The district should immediately draft and adopt a comprehensive policy on emergency procedures with required actions spelled out in detail so whoever is on duty at the plant will be able to notify proper authorities as prescribed by law. The district should also conduct immediate training for all plant personnel on these procedures. Notification forms, public posting signs and media notifications should be prepared and on hand. The Grand Jury also recommends MSD start drafting a comprehensive policy and procedures manual, with a goal of having the manual complete and adopted by the Board of Directors by year end. RESPONSE FROM MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT The Murphys Sanitary District does have policy and procedures manuals for both the treatment plant and the collections system and pumping stations. Copies of these documents were given to the Grand Jury. In addition, our SSSOP is an additional document to aid in the prevention of sewer overflows. A copy of this document is enclosed. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. 54
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
– THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (BOS) 1. Background Check - The BOS, when hiring the CDA Director (Director), failed to follow standard hiring procedures by neglecting to insist that the candidate’s qualifications and past work experience be verified and thoroughly checked. 2. Reporting Relationship - The BOS failed to clearly define the reporting relationship of the position and allowed the Director to circumvent the established line of supervision. The Director reported directly to the BOS with disregard for the published County organization chart. 3. Accountability - After establishing the Director’s direct reporting relationship to the Board, the BOS failed to hold the Director accountable and neglected to prepare any performance evaluations. 4. Job Qualifications - The Director, when hired by the County, lacked the technical skills and sufficient related experience to successfully perform the job. The BOS based their hiring decision on the applicant’s self-reported strong management experience. However, the Grand Jury, in the course of the investigation, could not substantiate many of the claims made on the Director’s resume and application. 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Regular monitoring of the water quality at the Bridge in West Point, by various members of the Upper Mokelumne Watershed Authority, consistently reveals above normal levels of e-coli bacterial contaminants. These levels exceed those detected at current monitoring sites further upstream.
F2:
Septic tanks and leach lines, on numerous parcels in the vicinity of the Barney Way and Charles Street area, are located at or near water level along the River 9 just upstream from the Bridge in West Point. The Bridge site also receives drainage from nearby culverts and rainwater runoff from Highway 26.
F3:
Many of the approximately 60 developed parcels, in the vicinity of the Barney Way and Charles Street areas that surround the River, have gone from part-time seasonal use to full-time occupancy in recent years. In addition, there are currently no mandated septic tank cleaning and inspection requirements for Calaveras County parcel owners.
F4:
The Grand Jury recognizes there are no quick or inexpensive fixes to completely remedy the septic tank and leach line problems that appear to at least partially contribute to the e-coli contamination along the identified section of the River. The financial impact on local parcel owners, without help from grants or other creative financing options, would be very costly. In addition, the West Point Waste Water Treatment Plant and Wilseyville Solid Waste Treatment Plants are located close-by.
F5:
The Bridge area has become an informal recreational site where people congregate for swimming, fishing and other water related activities. In addition, East Bay MUD also treats and stores these waters downstream for use by its Bay Area customers.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
RECOMMENDATION No more connections should be allowed until MSD has a signed agreement with Hay Station Ranch that reflects what is allowed in the WDR's, and Pond 4 has been expanded to meet the requirements for a 100-year storm event. RESPONSE REQUESTED Murphy's Sanitary District Board of Directors 20 VALLECITO CONSERVATION CAMP REASON FOR INVESTIGATION In accordance with Penal Code Section 919(b), the Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county. BACKGROUND The Vallecito Conservation Camp (VCC) opened in Angels Camp in 1958 under the direction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations Conservation Camp Program (CDCR). Through this and 42 other like facilities the CDCR provides California with an able-bodied, well-trained, and well equipped workforce for fire suppression and other State emergencies. CDCR inmates risk their lives to fight wildfires while taking advantage of positive rehabilitation programs. This program plays an integral role in California’s statewide wildfire response. The CDCR manages VCC jointly with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). These crews perform a vital service that benefits Californians as well as state, federal, county and local government agencies. The crews work many hours per year fighting wild fires and responding to floods, earthquakes, and assisting in search and rescue missions. When not responding to emergencies, additional hours are logged working on conservation projects on public lands and other community service projects. Fire crews clean up campgrounds, beaches, and parks, and provide labor for weed abatement as well as other projects that help reduce the risk of wildfires and disasters. VCC and CDCR fire camp staff also benefit communities when they are not fighting wildfires, by participating in presentations to schools and juvenile group homes to encourage young people to avoid drugs and alcohol. There are 42 Adult and two Divisions of Juvenile Justice Conservation Camps statewide. The program is estimated to save the state of California more than $80 million annually that otherwise would be paid to accomplish the same tasks. PROCEDURES Because the VCC is jointly operated by CAL FIRE and CDCR, we focused on the condition of the camp and its security measures. The grand jury met with CDCR prison officials from Sierra Conservation Center, CAL FIRE staff, the VCC staff and inmates. A physical inspection of the Camp was conducted, which included inmate quarters, workshop, kitchen, mess hall, and the recreation areas. Lunch was prepared and served by inmates. 21
F3:
- ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DISCHARGE The Grand Jury finds that little or no progress has been made on obtaining additional sources of discharge. Dependency upon a single source of discharge is a very risky proposition. Even if the District finds an alternate source of discharge, it could take over a year before discharge can begin. This problem has been known and studied for a number of years without being resolved.
F4:
- NOTICE OF VIOLATION The district received a Notice of Violation (NoV) from the CRWQCB in January 2007 identifying violations from the 2005/2006 inspection report. Although the District has filed responses to the NoV as required by the CRWQCB, little has been done, by MSD, to address the issues that caused the violations in the first place. The two major projects that will address the problems are: 1. Expansion of Pond 4 2. Increase in allowable discharge amount. The district has indicated that they are waiting to begin the expansion of Pond 4 until it can be emptied. According to MSD, this depends upon the weather and 19 the amount of effluent they can discharge. Increasing the amount of discharge depends upon the agreement with Hay Station Ranch, previously addressed in
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Increase in allowable discharge amount. The district has indicated that they are waiting to begin the expansion of Pond 4 until it can be emptied. According to MSD, this depends upon the weather and 19 the amount of effluent they can discharge. Increasing the amount of discharge depends upon the agreement with Hay Station Ranch, previously addressed in
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The 14 step application process being refined and proposed (Exhibit A) by the Community Development Agency (CDA) appears to have instituted key steps in an effort to resolve misconnects which may have developed during the process in the past. Those steps involve infrastructure and service aspects of a development.
F2:
The Pre-application meeting (step 2, Exhibit A) between the developer and county planning staff is intended to assist in the completion of the application, to expedite the process and issues, which might arise on the application itself. It does not imply acceptance, merely to resolve questions in the application process.
F3:
After a site visit by the Planning Department and the application is deemed complete for processing (step 4 and 5 Exhibit A), the recently added Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting (step 6 Exhibit A) is to be held. The purpose for adding the TAC meeting is to bring all “impacted/involved” agencies and special districts together with the developer in order to identify and discuss all aspects of the plan on the infrastructure. “Only County” agencies are required to be present.
F4:
The remaining steps 7 through 14 complete the process with public input included in Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor reviews, steps 13 and 14. SUMMARY In general, the process as being proposed by the Community Development Agency appears to streamline the application process with several refinements. If actual positive results come from the innovative step 6 TAC meeting, many past problems of infrastructure and service district misconnects could be resolved. The process requests “impacted/involved” agencies attend the meeting but further states only county agencies are required to attend TAC meetings. Infrastructure and service district input is critical to orderly development. Inadequate long term planning by service districts can be illuminated through this process.
F5:
Although staff is vigilant in the performance of their duties, two locations have a high volume of paper products, which may constitute a fire hazard: 1. The storage area in the kitchen, next to an exit door, has an accumulation of empty cardboard boxes. 2. Control Center has a large quantity of paper products stored in this secured area. In the event of a fire in this location, it could lessen deputies’ ability to control other areas within the jail. Only two air packs were on hand. Insufficient staffing continues to be a matter of concern, especially during the late evening and early morning shift with only two deputies on duty: 1. One in communications control 2. One to respond in case of an emergency situation, i.e. fire evacuation 76 The evacuation maps on the control room window are very small. Although staff may be familiar with exit procedures during an emergency situation (i.e. fire) visitors might have difficulty reading the small exit map. High employee turnover has been attributed to conditions of the jail facility.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Pre-Application- Could be a phone call just to verify their zoning or a drop in at the counter. Review if general plan/zoning change and/or use permits are required for the use. a. Non discretionary permit – entitled project under zoning b. Discretionary use permit – needs some sort of conditions to be met.
R2:
Pre-Application meeting – Planner meets with applicant to discuss the project; may include Planning Director or Community Development Director. Planner will assist the applicant with preliminary information needed to fill out application, then it is given to applicant to identify additional needs and complete remaining items prior to coming in with the completed application. Planner will help identify which items need to be submitted with the application and which can be submitted after application.
R3:
Application submitted – Stamped as received, but not considered complete until additional review is completed.
R4:
Planning site visit – Completed by the same planner from the pre- application meeting to make sure everything on the application and plans is reflected on site. Identify any environmental issues.
R5:
Application accepted as complete. County has thirty days to deem complete for processing, beginning the date application is submitted and fees are paid. (Government Code Section 65920)
R6:
Technical Advisory meeting – To bring impacted/involved agencies together to identify and discuss all issues. Potential participants include Planning, Building, Public Works, CDF, Environmental Health, Water District, Sewer District, Fire Districts, Fish & Game, and Army Corp. Only County agencies will be required to be there.
R7:
Applicant commissions additional studies. Based on results of staff and technical advisory meeting.
R8:
Initial agency circulation of project – Notification sent out to all agencies involved letting them know about project and giving them the opportunity to comment on proposed environmental review.
R9:
Initial comments received & additional studies approved.
R10:
Preparation of Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report.
R11:
Public circulation of environmental documents - Circulated to agencies and the public; publish a public notice.
R12:
Staff report prepared. Report includes project and environmental documents, and a recommendation of approval or denial.
R13:
Planning Commission – Reviews public records and takes public testimony. Basis of decision/recommendation has to be based upon substantial facts.
R14:
Board of Supervisors – Additional step required for general plan changes, zoning changes & ordinance changes. Final approval. CALAVERAS COUNTY JAIL REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES REASON FOR INVESTIGATION In accordance with Penal Code Section 919 (b), the 2006/2007 Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The investigation focused primarily on the jail, condition of confinement, daily operation, staffing, and the safety and security of staff and inmates. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury conducted a physical inspection of the Calaveras County Jail, located in the Government Center adjacent to the Calaveras County Superior Court in San Andreas. The Grand Jury observed the performance of duties by staff and the inter-action of staff and inmates as well as physical conditions of the facility. The County Sheriff, Under-sheriff, custodial staff, support staff, Calaveras Air Pollution Control Officer, Inspector for the Environmental Management Agency, representatives of the Calaveras Public Health Department, and some inmates were interviewed. The 2006 Local Detention Facility Health Inspection Report, Fire /Life Safety Inspection Report, Fire Inspection Report training logs, the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department inmate discipline reports, inmate grievances/complaints, and 2005/2006 Calaveras County Grand Jury final report were reviewed. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
All computers in the branches and main headquarters have Internet DSL connectivity through the libraries’ computer system. Proposed wireless service is anticipated to allow the public to connect their personal computers to the Internet. A request for wireless connectivity is to go to the Board of Supervisors for approval for San Andreas, Murphys, and Mokelumne Hill libraries.
F2:
Libraries reported a need for increased hours of operation, which requires increased staffing. In lieu of finding millions of dollars for new libraries, Friends of Library and Library Commissioners are seeking grants of $200,000 to $300,000 to move seven employees from part-time to full-time to provide more hours of operation at San Andreas Library. An additional professional librarian position, additional clerical assistants, and trained volunteers are needed at Central Library. Additional funding for increased staffing is also requested at branch libraries to increase hours of operation. Data from the 2006 California Library Statistics publication showed that in 2005- 2006 Tuolumne County with a population of 58,504 allocated $679,813 for library 89 staff salaries and benefits whereas Calaveras County with a population of 44,796 allocated only $407,190. In previous years, no increase has been provided for additional staffing. Status quo funding for library books and materials has been in effect for several years, the librarian reports.
F3:
The Grand Jury became aware of bus route and bus stop safety problems within the county. The Grand Jury selected the Pettinger Road bus route for detailed observation and found excessive patching causing a rough uneven road with unsafe shoulders. Heavy traffic between Jenny Lind and Highway 12 during morning bus travel intensifies the danger. Transportation Director of the Calaveras Unified School District and bus drivers report the road to be unsafe. The Calaveras County Public Works Deputy Director of Operations and Maintenance reported that road safety is their main concern and that no complaint had been received from the Calaveras Unified School District. Therefore only routine attention was being paid to this road. The Deputy Director reports, equipment to monitor peak usage of this road will be set up and attention will be given as to whether the condition of the road and usage deserve priority for possible resurfacing or repair.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
County school districts are now developing and implementing action plans to manage current safety and welfare issues based on the 2005 California Healthy Kids Survey and observations by staff and teachers. This survey was conducted at Bret Harte and Calaveras high schools. Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer, teachers and administrators interviewed reported the major problem is alcohol and marijuana abuse. Incidents of harassment, theft from lockers, and unattended purses were also reported. Bret Harte Union School District received a $455,225 grant provided by the state departments of Justice and Education, to fund programs to prevent school violence. The district has started a character education program that includes peer counseling, group and individual counseling and after-school activities designed to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect on campus and to reduce or eliminate harassment in all its forms. The counselor/social worker at Bret Harte is directing these programs. Bret Harte has also hired a substance abuse counselor to work with individuals or with groups. The grant is also paying 84
F3:
Not all kennels have been replaced or repaired and no time frame has been designated to complete the projects. The heating element in the kennel floors is inoperable. Staff reported that three standing heaters have been ordered but as of the date of the Grand Jury tour, the heaters were not in place. The Plexiglas fixture to cover the front panel of the quarantine kennel had not been completed and continues to need repair.
F4:
Written procedure manuals have been developed to standardize procedures in the areas of: Safety Training and Universal Precautions Euthanasia policy Staff dress code, grooming, and equipment Feline shelter protocol Pet of the Week procedure A problem exists in maintaining the procedure manuals in a centralized location and in the proper format. These procedures should be reviewed as needed, revised on an annual basis and approved by the Sheriff. Three of the existing procedures are in proper format and contain signature approval of the Sheriff. The Pet of the Week procedure is in proper format but does not contain signature block for the Sheriff. The Feline Shelter protocol is not in proper format and does not have a signature block for the Sheriff approval. The procedure manuals were not located in a centralized location, available for all staff. Although the procedure manuals have been developed, there is no indication staff has been provided training or read these procedures to ensure they are familiar with the requirements of these procedure manuals.
F5:
A review of the visitor logbook revealed that not all volunteers are signing in as required. 82
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Master copy in the Sheriff’s office
R2:
Centralized location in the Animal Control office
R3:
Copies for staff as needed RESPONSE FROM CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF The Pet of the week policy will be provided to the Sheriff in a format which includes a signature block for signature. The Feline Shelter protocol will also be placed in format consistent with other policies, and will be provided to the Sheriff for signature. Currently, staff is provided with a compact disk which contains Calaveras County Sheriff Department personnel policies, and each member of staff is required to complete a quarterly review of the policies, and sign a form indicating that they have read and understood such policy. Computers within the shelter facility are used for the viewing of the policy manual on compact disk. The Calaveras County Sheriffs Department will place one complete policy manual in the Sheriffs Department Briefing Room, and will place a second complete copy in the front office of the Animal Shelter Facility. Hard Copies of the policy manual will be provided to shelter staff upon request. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F2:
– FUNDS 1. Mismanagement of County Funds – Numerous outside consultants have been hired for work that could be done by CDA employees. The position of Chief Building Official is still filled by a Vali Cooper consultant and a large portion of the plan checking service is still performed by outside contractors. Due to the Director’s decisions, the CDA has spent nearly $2 million (almost half of its 2007/2008 budget) on consulting fees. 2. Budget Deficit - The County is currently faced with a CDA projected deficit of nearly $900,000 for fiscal year 2007-2008, the largest Planning and Building Department deficit in many years. This deficit is not entirely due to the national decline of the housing market. 3. Internal Audit - When the CDA’s second quarter actual budget deficit was discovered; the Director initiated an internal audit. The Director reassigned the qualified Account Technician to other duties and instructed a newly hired Permit Technician to conduct the audit and to perform the regular duties of the Account Technician. 4. Disregard for County Accounting Practices – The Director fails to follow the County’s accounting practices and procedures and has shown little interest in coordinating these practices with the County Auditor/Controller. This has resulted in costly accounting errors and confusion in recording various services such as Environmental Impact Report expenses and revenues within the Trust Account. 5. Lack of Consistency in Collecting Fees and Fines - The Director has exempted certain cases subject to code compliance fees and fines without justification, thus potentially violating Calaveras County Code, Title 8, Article IX Violations Fines and Procedures. 5 6. Hiring Incentives - The Director is the only Department Head in the County who has relied on costly hiring incentives when recruiting new Planners. 7. CDA Hiring Practices - The Director disregarded County hiring practices, bypassed Human Resources, and developed the CDA’s own recruiting, screening and interviewing procedures for potential hires.
F3:
– DIRECTOR 1. Management Style – The Director’s management style contributes to a chaotic workplace. The Director at times exhibits confrontational behavior towards County employees and Department Heads, and at times magnifies the severity of issues, presenting the BOS with multiple emergencies. 2. Work Environment – CDA employees have filed numerous harassment/hostile work environment complaints. Some of the earlier complaints prompted a thorough investigation, which resulted in a directive from the BOS to have all CDA management and employees participate in a team building exercise. The team building exercise was not completed (as of this writing) and failed because the Director walked out with the executive staff in mid-session and refused to continue. 6 3. Trust –The Director frequently scrutinizes the work of employees by secretly checking files in the absence of employees. This perceived lack of trust comes at the expense of the performance of the Director’s managerial responsibilities. 4. Communication – The Director’s accessibility to CDA employees is inadequate, partly due to the remote location of Director’s office from the Building and Planning Departments. In addition, the Director’s mode of communication is usually verbal and often unofficial, which leads to confusion, misinterpretations and misunderstandings. 5. Compliance with Administrative Requirements – For the past two years the Director has not prepared or mandated the preparation of annual performance evaluations of the CDA staff. 6. General Plan – The complete overhaul of the General Plan, as opposed to using a step-by-step process, was influenced by the Director’s sense of urgency. However, the Director’s lack of technical planning expertise has prevented consideration of alternate ways of moving the project forward.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS hire Department Heads only after background checks and thorough verification of prior work experience are completed by Human Resources Department.
R2:
The BOS publicly restore the reporting relationship of the Director to the County Administrative Officer (CAO).
R3:
The BOS and the Director adhere to the reporting relationship as defined in the County organization chart..
R4:
The CAO develop a plan to prepare annual performance evaluations on all Department Heads.
R5:
The Director enroll in an accredited educational institution and obtains a Certified Planner Certificate. RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Director, Human Resources Director, Community Development Agency
R6:
Hiring Incentives - The Director is the only Department Head in the County who has relied on costly hiring incentives when recruiting new Planners.
R7:
CDA Hiring Practices - The Director disregarded County hiring practices, bypassed Human Resources, and developed the CDA’s own recruiting, screening and interviewing procedures for potential hires. RECOMMENDATIONS
R8:
The BOS reassess the Mintier General Plan contract to find ways to minimize consultant’s expenditures, downsize Mintier’s role in the project and manage more of it in-house. RESPONSE REQUESTED Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Director, Community Development Agency 7 CALAVERAS COUNTY AUDIT CONTRACT REASON FOR INVESTIGATION It came to the attention of the Grand Jury that the contract with the accounting firm of Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP that was ordered by the Board of Supervisors in their June 19, 2007 meeting was not completed.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The District has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to address long-term infrastructure issues; the District still does not have a plan in place to address district-wide future needs.
F2:
While conducting interviews with district and plant management, the Grand Jury learned two separate policies and procedures manuals (aka operations manuals) exist. One manual contains policies and procedures regarding operation of the wastewater treatment plant while the other is for the pump station (headworks). These two manuals are dated 2000 and 2002 respectively and are out of date. Contact personnel and contact phone numbers are incorrect. Although a new employee handbook, dealing with personnel issues within the district, was adopted in 2006, a comprehensive, combined policies and procedures manual has yet to be written by district management and adopted by the board of directors. The CIP and employee handbook do not adequately address the specifics of day-to-day operations, job definitions, emergency procedures, etc.
F3:
The wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2002-2003. Originally intended to operate in an automatic mode, the plant still has to be run manually because the upgrade was not completed as originally specified. According to the district engineer, he has received no direction from the district Board to rectify this deficiency.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds that little or no progress has been made on obtaining additional sources of discharge. This problem has been known and studied for a number of years without being resolved.
F5:
The district received a Notice of Violation (NoV) from the CRWQCB in January 2007 identifying violations from 2005 and 2006. Correction of the NoV is very expensive and time consuming. Since the district has a part-time manager it has limited resources to deal with the NoV. 46
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Foothill Fire Board of Directors feels it would be irresponsible to only annex in those areas where development is proposed, and leave the remaining areas under the old contract. A more logical approach to the issue is to simply annex the entire service area at this time.
R2:
Calaveras County Planning will continue to receive development requests for projects within the New Hogan Lake service area. This is a desirable location: the land is open and easier to plan for various types of development. Foothill Fire will continue to work with County departments and other agencies to assure that fire and public safety standards are addressed in these proposals prior to approvals, and that those developments do pay their fair share cost to help mitigate any impact their project may have on Foothill Fire's ability to provide services within its jurisdiction. 40
R3:
The Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid agreements between local, county, state, and federal agencies currently address the unique service needs of in this area during fire protection or emergency response incidents. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. RESPONSE FROM JENNY LIND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Grand Jury has exercised wisdom in their recommendation relevant to the provider of fire protection to the area accessed by and through Milton Road. It is absolutely nonsensical to send another fire district through the Jenny Lind Fire Protection District in order to provide emergency services. The proposal of LAFCO to allow Foothill Fire Protection District to annex the area accessed through Milton Road is shortsighted and opens the door to potential problems as evidenced by (1) prolonged response times by Foothill Fire to the subject area; (2) multiple agencies responding code three to multiple incidents at the same time in the same geographically area thereby increasing the possibility of an accident; and additionally (3) fails to take into account the desires of the citizens that live in the at-issue area as to which fire district should provide services. The proposal also fails to address the ability of Foothill Fire to respond in a timely manner when time is of the essence especially during a medical emergency. The geographical failures of the proposal further serves to place the citizens of the at-issue area at additional risk of loss of property based upon the response time from Valley Springs by Foothill Fire when contrasted to that of Jenny Lind Fire Protection District wherein our average response time in our district is less than six (6) minutes from time of dispatch to time of arrival. The response time by Jenny Lind Fire to the at-issue property would clearly fall within the average response time as articulated above. It is impossible for the Foothill Fire Protection District to respond to the same area within the same time period. Public safety should be the primary and only concern when deciding which district is best suited to serve the at-issue area. The Grand Jury states on of their report that "LAFCO need reconsider its procedures for annexation of the New Hogan Dam area". We concur. As to the recommendation by the Grand Jury of immediate incorporation of all un-annexed areas into a fire protection district; this district proffers the following opinion. If additional funding to provide fire protection is made available to this district to annex unincorporated areas presently not within our protection scheme than this department wholeheartedly stands by ready to respond. If, in the alternative, an annexation comes at a cost to the district without an offset (additional funding), the feasibility of providing additional and/or new services becomes a detriment in correlation to costs and expenses associated with any fire protection services being contemplated. As to the planning recommendation; this district has incorporated a five (5) year plan into our planning process and has developed a comprehensive 41 schedule in addressing the infrastructure needs of our department. We additionally are intricately involved in all new building(s) and plans being contemplated in our district and take a proactive approach as to our needs in mitigation relevant to future services, equipment, and personnel. Our current five (5) year plan is subject to review at any time and most specifically will be addressed in the next few months to determine the success and shortcomings of the plan that was first developed in the early part of 2006. This district believes that all funding resources need be considered relevant to providing fire protection services including, but not limited to, financial support by future development. The Grand Jury recommendation that the annexation of an area could be funded by development rather than by a district and its current taxpayers is prudent and should be considered for incorporation by LAFCO. The consideration need not stop there; however, in that mitigation costs associated with new development (purchase of equipment, the hiring of personnel and other related issues relevant to providing fire protection to the annexed area), and the direct and indirect costs to the district, should be addressed as well. This district also concurs with the Grand Jury report that it is incumbent to plan for growth; that being said the district requires the cooperation of LAFCO in order to implement the recommendation’s proffered in the Grand Jury report. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSES REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The current Grand Jury elected to investigate Murphys Sanitary District (MSD) based on unresolved issues in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report and complaints alleging disorganized management and its inability to deal with critical issues facing the district both the short and long term. PROCEDURES The Grand Jury interviewed past and present district engineers, District Counsel, and district management. In addition, County Counsel was consulted. A private party with an ongoing contract to accept treated effluent with the district was interviewed. Relevant documents were requested and reviewed. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was consulted. Site visits were made to the wastewater treatment plants in both Murphys and Angels Camp. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The first call made by MSD to report the spill was inadvertently made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and not to OES. As a result, OES, in charge of disseminating information about the spill to all state and local agencies, has never been able to inform local agencies of the spill. A call to the City of Angels wastewater treatment plant was made by MSD notifying the treatment plant of the spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek. A call and fax reporting the spill was made by MSD to the CRWQCB. As of the writing of this report OES still has no record of being notified.
F2:
Media notification and Public Posting of sewage spills in excess of 1000 gallons is required by order of the Calaveras County Health Officer in compliance with §13271 of the California Water Code. A ‘Memorandum’, dated March of 1999, from the Calaveras County Health Officer was sent via certified mail to all County sanitary districts specifying procedures for notification, public and media. The spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek, November 26 and 27, 2006 received no public posting or media notification from MSD.
F3:
The spill occurred over a weekend and was discovered early Monday, November 27th 2006. When MSD staff first reported the spill to the Calaveras County Environmental Health Department, a message reporting the spill was left on the department’s voice mail because the office had not yet opened. Once the message was heard, the department did not follow up, because the department 52
F6:
Minutes of previous board meetings are being approved only when board members who attended those meetings are in attendance. No board action was made regarding this process. Minutes are often approved in batches at board meetings, and some are two to three months old.
F7:
On most agendas for regular meetings the board indicated that it would go into closed session to discuss pending litigation. There is no pending litigation.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The treatment plant can operate continuously in automatic mode.
R2:
The NoV has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CRWQCB.
R3:
An alternate source of discharge has been obtained.
R4:
A comprehensive emergency policy is written to include duties of all should follow both state and county reporting guidelines, be posted in all offices and plants, and be given to all district personnel including members of the board after having been reviewed and adopted by the district board. The Grand Jury also recommends: A. The district reorganize its management policy and procedures, including the hiring of a full time district manager. The district also institute a hiring and training program, including pay adjustments where appropriate, to reduce high staff turnover. B. A comprehensive policies and procedures manual be drafted and adopted by December 2007 that spells out all functions necessary for normal plant operation, special procedures that may be required from time to time, and emergency procedures including accurate and lawful reporting methods. C. Long range planning be implemented, including a comprehensive district wide plan to deal with short term and long-range goals. D. Innovative funding solutions need to be explored due to the need for a large number of infrastructure requirements necessary within the next five years, and could include bonding arrangements with potential developers, grants from federal and state resources, and assessment districts where needed. E. With an eye on the limited capacity of the wastewater treatment facility, the district should promote an aggressive district wide water conservation policy in conjunction with UPUD. RESPONSE FROM MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS In response to the above mentioned nine recommendations, the District's Treatment Plant is operating within the parameters of its Waste Discharge Permit. It is of our opinion that the NoV has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CRWQCB as the District has not received either a phone call or letter from the Regional Board expressing concerns about our responses. A comprehensive emergency policy has been completed that deals with duties of personnel and reporting policy. This has been submitted to both the Regional Board and the Grand Jury. Policies and procedures manuals are currently being rewritten for both the Treatment Plant and Pump Stations. Once completed, they will be submitted for approval to our Board and then a copy will be forwarded to the Grand Jury. Funding for the required infrastructure requirements, necessary within the next five years is currently being researched by the District. The District in the near future will work with the Union Public Utility District to promote an aggressive district wide water conservation policy. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. RESPONSE FROM UNION PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT UPUD does promote water conservation to its customers. Many years ago, new construction permits and codes began to require low flow water appliances, such as toilets, faucets and showerheads on all new buildings. Also, UPUD's rates are currently structured as a monthly base rate that includes an allowance for 1,000 cubic feet of usage for each connection. Water consumption over that amount is charged an additional $0.35 per 100 cubic feet, thereby discouraging higher levels of consumption. In addition to these ongoing conservation measures, the UPUD Board would be willing to consider any proposals from Murphys Sanitary District that promote conservation for their purposes, provided those efforts do not put an undue burden on the UPUD ratepayers. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT SPILL REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSE REASON FOR INVESTIGATION It came to the attention of the Calaveras County Grand Jury that a Notice of Violation (NoV) was issued to Murphys Sanitary District (MSD) by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). The NoV contained reference to a spill of approximately 150,000 gallons of raw sewage into Angels Creek (aka Murphys Creek) in Murphys over the weekend of November 26th and 27th 2006. Angels Creek is a source of drinking water for the City of Angels. The Grand Jury learned that the spill was not reported to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) as required by law. (Proposition 65 - Safe Drinking Water and Toxic enforcement Act of 1986, and §9030 of the California Labor Code.) PROCEDURES The Grand Jury contacted and interviewed the Calaveras County Department of Environmental Health, Calaveras County Department of Public Health, and MSD. Documents from the CRWQCB, OES, MSD, Calaveras County Environmental Health Department (EH) and City of Angels Wastewater Treatment plant were reviewed. The California Department of Fish and Game was contacted by phone to confirm the findings. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
LAFCO designated the New Hogan area to be within the FFPD sphere of influence in 2000 when the County Fire Department was divided into the existing special fire protection districts. Annexation of the New Hogan area was requested by FFPD in 2006 and a waiver of LAFCO fees for this process was requested when development of a small portion of the area began. LAFCO fees were originally waived for all of the newly formed districts at the time of formation in 2000. However, in 2006, LAFCO refused to waive the $2000 annexation fee for FFPD due to the delay in completing the process as originally planned.
F2:
The fire protection portions of county property taxes from the New Hogan area have been going to FFPD. Fire protection for New Hogan area development is being provided and not in question. Annexation of the area, however, has not been completed.
F3:
There is no financial incentive for annexation of New Hogan or other comparable areas by any special districts, until there is a buildup of a significant portion of the area. Development would then increase a special district’s portion of the assessed valuation. It is too late for needed infrastructure planning once there is a significant buildup of an area. Although annexation, then, becomes a financial reward, it does not assure that planning for critical infrastructure will occur. 33
F4:
Station 2 is not only inadequate to house equipment and administration, but does not appear to meet county building code standards. In a site visit it was noted that a major portion of a cinder block wall was removed for a vehicle pass-through with no header and post bracing. The Grand Jury could find no record of a permit being issued to have this wall removed. This may constitute a safety hazard to the people working in the building and the public attending meetings. Further investigation revealed the initial permits for expansion of the building have not received final approval. 29
F5:
FFPD is shorthanded of volunteer fire fighters. Currently there is an insufficient number of drivers with a Class B drivers license required to operate four of the larger fire apparatus.
F6:
Management and building deficiencies within the district have been exacerbated by lack of funding. Without a full time fire chief, there has been a legacy of last minute planning and personnel problems. A shoestring approach to the completion of the much-needed new Station #1 has contributed to the district’s existing problems. How well the district will serve its current and future residents will depend on the implementation of long range fiscal planning now. Although planned development and assessed valuation increases within the district can answer some of the district financial shortcomings, there may not be sufficient increases in funding for the district to catch up with projected growth and infrastructure requirements.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
An updated policy and procedures manual.
R2:
A comprehensive fire fighter training plan. This training plan should establish goals for the number of personnel recommended at various training levels and skills plus how to achieve these goals by December 2007.
R3:
A long-term plan, which should include short and long term elements. This is critical to establishing funding levels, equipment needs, staff requirements, and apparatus replacement to meet infrastructure requirements of FFPD by December 2007. In addition, the District’s long-term plan should take into account, and coordinate with, the Calaveras County General Plan update.
R4:
Hire a Fire Chief. RESPONSE FROM FFPD BOARD OF DIRECTORS The District understands and will consider the recommendations. In response, the following information is provided for the Grand Jury's consideration. • Policies and procedures manuals are continually being updated. • The District's training plan has been implemented, and new training programs have been set in place. • The board of directors has been working on a long-range planning document for some time. Completion of Station Non 1 in Burson has been a priority project in those plans. As the area continues to grow the District's plan will be expanded to include consideration of changes in growth patterns and public safety service needs. • A permanent fire chief has been in place for several months. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate.
R5:
Jenny Lind FPD has not to date submitted any type of application to LAFCO requesting that Jenny Lind's Sphere of Influence be amended to 37 include the New Hogan Lake service area. Nor have they submitted a request to annex that area into their district.
R6:
The proper agency for reviewing annexation requests is the Calaveras County Local Agency Formation Commission, an independent commission. It is responsible for, among other things, (a) reviewing boundary change requests, formations or dissolution of special districts, and (b) studying municipal services and future growth of existing special districts under their jurisdiction. More detail on these services may be found in the aforementioned "Fire and Emergency Response Services in the New Hogan Lake Area" study. A. Response to Finding 1:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The 1990 & 2004 Board of Supervisors resolutions, 90-356 & 04-235, addressing Building Department revenue and appropriation by the establishment of a Land Use Department Trust Fund are not strictly in compliance with California Health and Safety Code §17951.
F2:
California Health and Safety Code §17951 (c) states “The amount of the fees prescribed pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not exceed the amount reasonably required to administer or process these permits… and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes”. Fees collected, which exceed expenditures, can be carried over to the next fiscal year but are to be allocated only to the Building Department. The intent of the code is to prevent additional taxation when fees are collected and used for purposes other than to fund Building Department operations. Through the Supervisors resolution of 1990, 90-356, the Land Use Trust Fund could be used to “fund various expenditures associated with the operations of the Surveyor, Planning, Building and Environmental Health Departments”, as well as the Building Department, in violation of California Health and Safety Code §17951.
F3:
In 2004 the Board passed Resolution 04-235 which amended 90-356, effectively allowing funds which had been deposited only into the Land Use Trust Fund to go into the General Fund. The amendment was a violation of the California Health and Safety Code §17951. 59
F4:
In 2006 at the behest of the Director of Community Planning, the County Administrator’s Office began drafting a resolution intended to bring the funding process into compliance with California Health and Safety Code §17951. The resolution is expected to be presented to the Supervisors before the end of the 2006-2007 fiscal year. In addition, the Administrator’s office has the task of researching budgets since 1996 to determine funds which should be returned to the Building Department budget. This research is to include the establishment of all Building Department costs not charged in the budget. An accounting standard, A87 charges, allows for recovery of indirect costs not originally included in department budgets.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The jail itself continues to be inadequate and obsolete due to the increase in crime and the age of the building. The jail was constructed in the early 1960’s to incarcerate an inmate population of 47. The crime rate of Calaveras County continues to grow at a rapid pace, with no expansion feasible within the existing jail structure. A court order mandates the capacity of the jail not to exceed 65 inmates. As a result, the sheriff frequently must initiate, and the inmates knowingly take advantage of, the early release program in order to make room for new prisoners. This becomes a public safety issue as some inmates bypass drug or other treatment programs because they will probably be released from jail early under the current system. This adult jail facility continues to be the only jail within the county serving the Sheriff’s Department, the City of Angels Police Department, as well as the local arrests initiated by the California Highway Patrol, Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies as needed. 23
F2:
The Grand Jury found the conditions of confinement under Federal, State and local laws, for the most part, are being met. However, since inmate recreation is provided via the enclosed recreation yard, writing materials, television, and library books, monitoring these activities has resulted in the utilization of additional deputy support from the field to meet the compliance regulations. This provision of additional deputy support to maintain inmate control does negatively impact the police response in the community by having less law enforcement officers available. The outer perimeter of the jail continues to constitute a security and safety issue. There are no secure areas outside the jail where the inmates are moved between vehicles, the Court House or the jail itself.
F3:
Security and safety issues still exist due to the physical layout of the jail. Blind spots hamper officers from visible observations of inmate and staff movement in certain locations within the jail. Other locations would not provide an entrance or exit route in an emergency situation should a fire erupt or during an inmate related disturbance. Most doors are only 24 inches wide, which do not meet current California building codes. The jail has not been able to comply with the American Disabilities Act due to cost and restructuring of the building. One option mentioned was to turn the two (men and women) rest rooms in the front of the building into one for use by both men and women. Additional manpower is required to monitor inmates arrested for substance abuse offenses; this restricts staff from monitoring the remainder of the inmates. Supplies and storage items lined the hallways making it difficult to pass without obstruction.
F4:
On September 1, 2007 a rainstorm hit San Andreas causing a power outage. The jail is normally equipped with a back up generator to handle this type of emergency. On this occasion the lights flickered and the generator failed causing damages to and loss of major electronics and equipment. These damages included disabling the 911 emergency call system, which is housed within the jail building. Inspection by a Sacramento electrical corporation revealed that with the existing connections, the electrical system has the potential for over-heating and complete failure. The backup generator is antiquated and is not equipped with 24 protective devices to prevent it from shutting down when there are power irregularities. Damages are estimated at over $45, 000.00 to date.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
An incomplete policies and procedures manual.
R2:
No comprehensive training plan.
R3:
No existing comprehensive long-range plan.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
- SEWER CONNECTIONS A least one "Will Serve" letter was issued to allow a development of approximately 40 homes to be connected to the MSD sanitary sewer system. Since the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Notice of Violation (NoV) received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) indicates that the system is already at capacity, the Grand Jury (GJ) questions the decision to allow more sewer connections. The GJ understands that MSD and Hay Station Ranch have received new or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) from the CRWQCB, but MSD still lacks a signed agreement with Hay Station Ranch that reflects the new or updated WDR's in which case MSD is still operating under the old agreement. This agreement does not allow MSD to meet the Pond 4 freeboard requirement.
F2:
- WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE The wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2002-2003 at a cost to the district of about $400,000.00. The GJ has not been able to find any documentation that specified to the district engineer what was the required outcome expected for the upgrade. A report prepared in March 2007 by the independent engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell said that the upgrade was "apparently intended" to allow the MSD to produce Title 22 tertiary effluent. The plant, in its’ present state, is only capable of continuously producing Title 22 18